Recently there was an interesting blog on Liberty Gibbert about an article about the case of a judge ordering that a trial involving a man who had plead guilty to “detaining” his sister-in-law “for advantage to intimidate and assault” after denying and having dropped an attempted murder charge; be made a judge only trial.

The blog claimed this set a special precedent as it set special circumstances for an individual based on religious grounds. While the trial itself is a highly controversial topic in and of itself; what transpired there was highly telling.

I have already discussed the issues surrounding Islamaphobia here and the very real issue it presents for Australians, however what was equally interesting was the response by the blog owner, who claims that his blog is libertarian.

When I first saw the post I commented, just as I had there, recognising the Judge’s concerns as well as pointing out why Islamaphobia has been and is a huge problem, as I have discussed in depth in my own blog response to the issue. At no point did I agree with doing away with juries, even when assumptions were made that I was proposing just that and I clarified exactly what I was proposing.

One poster, by the name of Susanne, then claimed to post from a feminist perspective and even made the ludicrous claim that treating women (including Arab women) was somehow a “Zionist plot”, which I immediately pointed out the flaws in by pointing out a short version of the history of just how “well” Zionism has treated Arab women.

This then turned into me supposedly claiming that anyone who judged the treatment of the victim in this case as illegal was a bigot, and was somehow defending Sharia Law, when I had repeatedly claimed on multiple occasions that my concern was exclusively with the defendant being judged on their ethnicity and not on the evidence of the crime.

An interesting exchange was in response to some radical passages in the Qu’ran, pointing out that the Bible also advocated for stoning women for adultery. However the fact that I was pointing out, which is that every religious book has radical tenants and teachings within it, went right over her head when she responded with:

AR, everyone knows that Jesus changed the stoning rule, – if you don’t know that I can’t believe that you are a christian (and I’m an atheist btw).

A side point is that he actually didn’t change it- he merely declared that only those who were without sin should cast the first stone, if we’re going to get technical. However what I found most interesting was the fact that my religion was questioned because I dared to point out that the Qu’ran was not exclusive to promoting human rights abuses and examined “my own house” as the old saying goes.

I have also recently had an equally ignorant poster going by the name of msher claiming

How certain individuals can turn anything into a place for anti-semtic rants is beyond me.

Of course what msher has failed to grasp in their great ignorance is that polarisation of the term aside, a Semite is an Arab, not merely a Jew (and in fact only technically applies to the Hebrews) and so as Antisemitism applies to discrimination against Arabs; Islamophobia, particularly when used against Arab Muslims, IS Antisemitism.

Throughout the article, I was effectively verbally lynched by the entirety of the posters there and subjected to trolling and insults, while my posts have been moderated. My moderation goes back to a previous thread about abortion, where I pointed out that abortion was a form of child abuse and butchery, grounded in ageist eugenics and that therefore anyone who supported the procedure in place of developing viable and feasible alternatives was showing themselves to be either a child abuse enabler or abuser and a believer in eugenics. In cases where they supported abortion on the grounds of disability, a Nazi.

Such claims were entirely merited and as anyone who has given bigotry and great deal of thought would be aware of; someone is only a bigot while they continue to choose to hang onto bigoted attitudes.

Yet what I encountered in that thread can only be described as childish and trolling behaviour, including a post which read

I’m not making any claims at all Andrew. Just defending what we have already. Anyone that’s not happy is free to ‘take a hike.’

In other words, if you don’t like it; go back to where you came from. Just one problem there. I’m white Anglo-Saxon Catholic, my most recent immigrant roots go back to my Great Grandfather who was a Welsh miner who immigrated here in 1911. Besides that, my next most recent roots are English and Irish middle class immigrants from the 1850. Beyond that, my ancestry is convict in nature. Telling me to effectively “go back to where I came from” is a complete oxymoron in this case.

Lesser comments and attitudes expressed by individuals such as Luton Ian include statements such as:

at the risk of falling into the smelly mess of one of AR’s tu quoque fallacies (AR, That’s an insult – not an ad hominem!)

Ironically, while making a logical proof of the character of those who hold certain attitudes towards abortion earned me moderation, such low-brown and even xenophobic comments have been given a free pass by the blog owner.

Of note is that the blog owner continues to engage in censorship and mockery himself. An example of the mockery of my so called “imagined” problem is where the following exchange wound up in response to my proposing the psychological screening of potential jurors, pre-selection, for racist attitudes in cases where such attitudes might taint a jury:

If my quoting you directly, (and even hyperlinking to that quote) is “inferring something is far more totalitarian than what I was actually proposing”, then I’m afraid, Andrew, you’re shaking your fist at a mirror. You just don’t realize it yet – Oz

On the contrary Oz, the person who cannot see the slippery slide into totalitarianism they’re on here is you. What I proposed, if you had actually bothered to read it, had more than enough checks and balances to prevent misuse of the information, while your insistence on ignoring both the problem only leads to a situation which in at the 20th Century, in numerous occasions, resulted in religious persecution of individuals through the legal system. Granted you could argue that that was a “top-down” instance of persection, but as the genocide of the indigenous people here in Australia proves, genocide that occurs in a manner that is “bottom-up” much like persecution, is equally damaging and abhorrent.

I’m not ignoring the problem. You’re imagining the problem. You wish to impose your minority views on the whole community, even though there are Christians, Muslims and Jews on all sides of politics who see no need for it. Just one judge, whose ruling was overturned in a higher court – Oz

I then followed up pointing out just how little I have “imagined” the problem to be, which met the following responses to each point of evidence:

So many questions addressed specifically to me here, I have to respond to them in-line – Oz

“I’m not ignoring the problem. You’re imagining the problem. You wish to impose your minority views on the whole community, even though there are Christians, Muslims and Jews on all sides of politics who see no need for it. Just one judge, whose ruling was overturned in a higher court – Oz”

Really? So Imagined the Cronulla Riots; did I?

You’re imagining that five thousand drunken yobbos seven years ago, in a city of a population of nearly five million, egged on by a foolish radio broadcaster and waving Australian flags, constitute a coherent reason to change our entire system of criminal justice. Yes, you’re imagining that.

How about the uproar in Camden over the Islamic School going in there with cries of “we’re a Christian country” at the heart of it? Uproar? A couple of dozen locals in a residents action group?? Come on.

I’ve imagined middle class family friends who have lived in the Western Suburbs of Sydney have negative attitudes; have I? Now you’re asking me whether or not you are imagining attitudes of people I have never met. Perhaps you should address your question to someone who knows you both. Or maybe a professional counsellor.

I’ve imagined xenophobic responses from multiple people when I helped an independent political party member campaigning in Toronto last election regarding more people coming intoo this country tied directly into the “stop the boats” rhetoric have I? Imagining xenophobia does seem to be something of a recurring theme with you, Andrew

I’ve imagined talkback hosts and their scores of mindless drone listeners mouthing off of late about in-community processing after identities have been confirmed while inferring that they’re all potential terrorists; have I? The reality is that I’m not the one burying my head in the sand on this one, you are. How about we let our readers be the jury on that question?

“Our jury system, in your eyes, represents a lynch mob? Or a kangaroo court? In that case Andrew, your time would be better spent writing to the Law Reform Commission. I doubt they lurk here – Oz”

Choosing to reply in an obtuse manner does not negate the problem. There is a vast difference between theory and practice. In theory the system is fair and impartial, however we do not live in the bubble of a textbook. The reality is that when a jury is tainted enough by bigotry; then it is that bigotry which is judged and not the evidence at hand. Then that happens, then yes, what you have in practice is little more than a legally sanctioned lynch mob. As such taking steps to negate that problem is and entirely reasonable point to suggest. No, I really mean it. Go and write to the LRC. Tell them your concerns. Organise a group of like-minded individuals and petition the government. Go and tell your local Member of Parliament that his/her constituents, owing to their widespread bigotry, cannot be trusted to be fit for jury service, particularly when the defendant is a Muslim, without prior psychological screening. And while you’ve got his attention, tell him that not only should he push this message to his electorate while campaigning for re-election, but that he himself should be subjected to psychiatric evaluation before ever again being allowed to pass laws that affect the rest of us across the country.

Get back to us and let us know how you got on – Oz

The minimisation which ignores the profound effects of the media here with regards to Islamaphobia, particularly in regards to “shock jocks”, is one thing, however the mocking nature of this last post I find most telling in its mockery. Oz claims to be so politically aware, yet suggests that I lobby Australian Politicians, who never vote against giving themselves pay rises, have turned political transparency into a joke with things like the MDBA town meetings and who protect their own when found worthy of investigation for corruption, to pass a measure which would make them completely accountable. I cannot help but wonder if his next suggestion is for me to try nailing jelly to a tree.

As far as the censorship goes, this post was made at 2.20pm yesterday and sat in moderating limbo for an hour, while posts I made at 2.43pm, 2.52pm and 3.02pm were all approved. In fact it was only when I raised the point in a post I made at 3.40pm that both posts appear to have been approved. The reason given for the post not being approved is :

That’s because playing with my children is more important than responding to you – Oz

So he’s too busy to respond to what I’ve written, but not too busy to read what I’ve written? Does anyone else see the problem with this picture?

Even more telling is where he posted at 7.13am:

Folks, the person in question will return later this afternoon, after I get the chance to moderate a particularly long post. He will then be welcome to participate in a constructive manner in the discussion at Ozboy’s Bar and Grill.

Considering what has transpired here in terms of his censorship of my posts, I cannot help but notice a rather ironic use of the word “constructive” in light of his blog being supposedly a libertarian one. Equally ironic is the fact that I voiced concerns over juries turning into glorified lynch mobs due to racial prejudice and the treatment I received from the bulk of individuals in that thread, was very reminiscent of one.

I should add that 4 posts of mine now sit currently censored, and have since I accused him in the first of them of engaging in censorship on a supposedly libertarian blog. I also warned him based on what had transpired, I would be writing my own blog post. As such I am saving unedited versions of the page with my posts “awaiting moderation” and depending on what is censored, I will be making screen captures and posting them here. Update, the 4 posts I made have been removed and comments closed on the thread. Below are the comments where I have been gagged:

@Ozboy You’re imagining that five thousand drunken yobbos seven years ago, in a city of a population of nearly five million, egged on by a foolish radio broadcaster and waving Australian flags, constitute a coherent reason to change our entire system of criminal justice. Yes, you’re imagining that.

No I’m recognising biggotry for what it is. The drunken yobbos are the most outward form of it but then you have the more civilised version of it, where people have really ignorant notioons of other groups and discriminate in a more “civilised” manner, usually categorised by statements such as “some of my best friends are” and “you don’t know how they live”. It’s very much the later that is of concern. Yes it was egged on by a broadcaster, but there are many talkback jockeys in this country who are equally ignorant in their statements (such as a certain broadcaster who frequently appears on The Project) right to this present day and attract the same sheeple which make up a large proportion of the general public.

Uproar? A couple of dozen locals in a residents action group?? Come on.

You mean a couple of dozen people who got major airplay in prime time news here for several days and again, be came fuel for the aforementioned shockjocks?

Now you’re asking me whether or not you are imagining attitudes of people I have never met.

No, what happened is that you accused me of imagining attitudes of people you have never met, as you rightly point out here, and I’m asking you how you can possibly make such a call when by your own admission, you have never met the people in question. Oh and 10 points for reference of referring me to a therapist – really classy stuff there on your part.

Imagining xenophobia does seem to be something of a recurring theme with you, Andrew

Yes because heaven forbid I discuss xenophobia in an issue that involves *gasp*shock*horror* xenophobia as a major issue with it.

No, I really mean it. Go and write to the LRC. Tell them your concerns. Organise a group of like-minded individuals and petition the government. Go and tell your local Member of Parliament that his/her constituents, owing to their widespread bigotry, cannot be trusted to be fit for jury service, particularly when the defendant is a Muslim, without prior psychological screening. And while you’ve got his attention, tell him that not only should he push this message to his electorate while campaigning for re-election, but that he himself should be subjected to psychiatric evaluation before ever again being allowed to pass laws that affect the rest of us across the country.

Get back to us and let us know how you got on – Oz

Oz, since common sense seem to have eluded you here, a few things. For starters, the entire political system is a farce of a democracy right down to sections 58-60 of the constitution, and what would be advocated for here is them no longer being able to use their current bogeyman for political point scoring. As for political reforms like psychological assessments of candidates, you’d have even less luck getting it through than getting them to vote against a pay rise for themselves.

The notion that an attempt to lobby for change would fail (and I know this would fail but not because of what is being proposed) due to a corrupt system, does not reflect on the proposed changes, but on the system itself.

Of course what is really telling here is the following exchange:

Also Oz, for some reason, a comment I made at 2.20pm is still awaiting moderation for some reason.That’s because playing with my children is more important than responding to you – Oz

Of course the interesting thing is that when I posted this comment at the tail end of a post made at 3.40pm, posts which I had made after the post made at 2.20pm (at 2.43pm, 2.52pm and 3.02pm) had all been approved for moderation. Considering the sequence of events, the notion that you were AFK is highly contentious, and given the mocking and fallacious nature of your responses and reasoning for not responding, the only conclusion I can reach is that you were attempting censorship here. Rather telling when someone is running a blog which they claim is libertarian. Then again, perhaps I’ve struck a nerve and are forcing you to have to examine some of your own beliefs and it’s grating with you. No doubt you’ll sit on this one too for some “convenient” reason as well.

@fenbeagleblog I’m not making any claims at all Andrew. Just defending what we have already. Anyone that’s not happy is free to ‘take a hike.’ (quote added for context)

Defending the imperfections in an imperfect system is always a slippery slope to yet another lesson in history that we as a race have failed to learn. I find it ironic that you would use that phrase on me. For the record, and going back to my grandparents, my most recent immigrant background is from the beginning of the 20th Century, 2 sides of my heritage go back to 5th and 6th generations, and my 4th side, goes right back to being a convict. Claiming that anyone who doesn’t like it can take a hike, in my case, is the height of irony.

“A recent study on racist attitudes conducted by the University of New South Wales (UNSW) in 2003 found one in eight Australians interviewed admitted they were prejudiced, particularly towards Muslim Australians. The study, conducted by a team led by geography senior lecturer Dr. Kevin Dunn, also found some Australians were living in denial of such prejudice though 80 per cent of those surveyed recognized racism was a problem. When asked if they ever met a Muslim. ‘NO’, they said.”

Funny how that response covers several individuals here, including Ozboy fit the description of those in denial (oh and as I am aware of what is going on here, I have multiple tabs open refreshed at different times, just in case you decide to “conveniently” censor something and will be publishing everything in a blog post of my own at a later date). It’s rather telling when people don’t see a problem, resort to censorship when they’re called out on it including mockery and even tell someone with convict ancestry to effectively “go back where they came from” even more telling is Oz’s use of the word “constructive” when he claims to be a libertarian and is in fact in that scenario resorting to blatant totalitarianism.

Furthermore, it covers several key factors which I have brought up including-
“A report, entitled ‘Respect and Racism in Australia’, prepared in June 2004 by Racism Monitor Group of the University of Technology in Sydney (UTS) reveals that; Australian Arabs Muslims community “has been and continues to be unfairly targeted” specifically, and that racism is so frequent that “it has become almost accepted” and Muslims do not feel ‘entitled’ to make complaints. Racism against Muslims is openly promoted, and continues to contribute to decrease in the process of integration. It is propagated by politicians as a tool to instil fear in the community and justify draconian policies.

As it has been predicted, the “Anti-terrorism Bill”, introduced here recently has encouraged, if not incited Islamophobia. The new laws enforced a pre-existing fear in the Muslim community. Muslims are made to feel alienated, and (as if they) do not truly belong in Australia. The Bill, as it is called, designed specifically to discriminate against Australians from Muslim and Arabic backgrounds. The recent violent attacks on members of Australia’s Muslim Community were just a few cases.

At least 5000 “White Australians” invaded the south eastern Sydney suburb of Cronulla’s foreshore and beachside streets on Sunday (11 December 2005) chasing two young Muslim Australians of Lebanese origin. Racist thugs and Neo-fascist opportunists attacked and assaulted individuals and small groups of Muslim Australians. The racially motivated violence, which has been boiling for sometimes is misleadingly portrayed in the media as “the local boys trying to protect their beach and community”. It is also alleged that the violence is in retaliation to a rumours that Muslim youths assaulted two lifeguards earlier this month.

The media – the most controlled in the Western world – not only play a crucial role in inciting and legitimising these criminal acts. They also ‘perpetuate historically inherited stereotypes and cultural imaginaries that form part of the national collective memory bank’. Anti-Muslims hatred is a best seller in Australia. TV, radio, the printing press and publishing houses are competing for the best available distortion of Islam and Muslims. In fact one can become a celebrity overnight in Australia, by simply producing a distorted image of Arabs and Muslims. It is a topic promoted as much as playing Cricket.

Media grunts led by the right-wing columnist Andrew Bolt of the Melbourne Herald Sun, Janet Albrechtsen of Murdoch’s The Australian newspaper, and Alan Jones of Sydney Radio 2GB and others are fuelling racism and influencing community’s attitudes. Indeed, Alan Jones is encouraging racially-motivated violence against Muslims on his popular redneck talk. Anti-Muslims hatred is rising because of media bashing of Muslims and Government policy of incarcerating of the mainly Muslim refugees. “Sections of the media took [the attack on Cronulla beach] far too far and one can only surmise that the way this issues was dealt with on talkback radio amounts to incitement”, said Mr. Keysar Trad, president of Islamic Friendship Association of Australia.

Many flawed reasons have been provided to justifying the violent attacks against Muslims and to cover up racism as central to the violence. The racially motivated attack in Cronulla “is revenge for the Bali bombings and the September 11 attacks”, declared Bruce Baird, a Federal Liberal backbencher in Canberra. It seems that the destruction of the Iraqi society and the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi women, children and men by the Anglo-American armies is not a sufficient holocaust to satisfy Mr. Cook violent revenge. Whatever the reason was, “it shows that there is underlying racism running deeply in the Australian psyche”, said Huranda Seyit, director of the Forum on Australian-Islamic Relations. It is remarkable that Muslims are the first to call on Muslim youth in the Community to “calm down, and refrain from any further violence”. Why shouldn’t “White Australians” do the same?

Opportunist politicians have been the only beneficiaries of violence and racism against Australians from non-Anglo-Saxon backgrounds. “This is a great day” for Australia, said John Moffitt, leader of the Australia First Party, a rightwing collection of thugs. Others want to go back to the old days of “White Australia Policy”. Defunct racist politicians such as John Stone of the National Party are attacking Islam, and advocating the banning of Muslim immigrants and abolishing “multiculturalism”.

Liberal MPs Bronwyn Bishop and Sophie Panopoulos have repeatedly attacked Islam, using Muslim women dresses as the pretext to incite Australians to stand up against the Muslim hijab in schools. The purpose of this old “colonial feminism” is not to defend Muslim women rights, but to promote racism, denying Muslim women education, and their rights to wear whatever suites them. What have these two MPs said about the abuses and torture of Iraqi women by the occupying forces and their leaders? Instead of rejecting their views, the Government has encouraged this kind of racism, and allows Nazis-like groups such as the Australia First Party and the Patriotic Youth League to flourish.

Australian Muslim women were always the immediate targets of the racially-motivated violence. The daily Melbourne, The Age reported on November 13, 2005 that; “’Fatimah’ [a Muslim woman] was punched, kicked, spat on and abused, told to ‘go home to her own country and left with an injury to her right eye’. Her sister, she said, had a knife thrust towards’ her face”. The West Australian Sunday Times (13 November 2005) is labelling every Muslim a “terrorist”, and the victims are always, Australian women of Muslim backgrounds. ”I think families are staying home and avoiding going out, particularly women who wear the hijab, because we have seen that they are particularly targeted”, said Australian Arabic Council deputy chairman, Mr. Taimor Hazou.

Islamophobia is a serious threat to the Australian society. It is reminiscent to that of anti-Jews hatred in Europe in recent history. “Racism in Australia is rooted in every area of Australian society, from government to schools to courts to churches…. Racism is an endemic and chronic problem that must be addressed and solved”, writes the Australian author, Anne Pattel-Gray. “Racism is embedded in Australian culture and federal politicians should not ignore it”, added MP Harry Quick.

Sydney Police alleged to have evidence that Neo-Nazis and “white supremacist” groups, including right-wing politicians were among the crowd attacking Muslims at Cronulla beach. Meanwhile those who are promoting and selling racism are sitting and laughing in their party rooms, radio and TV stations, and editorial news rooms around Australia. In order for tolerance to establish its roots deep in society, the head of racism must be cut off and buried.

A tolerant non-racial society is an egalitarian society free of racial categories. “As Australia increasingly globalizes it must shed the ignorant roots of intolerance and embrace the multiplicity of nationalities already within its borders. If the North Cronulla riots are not incentive enough for change, then Australia risks a future plagued by disunity and disgruntled reaction to the faux ideals of egalitarianism”, writes Bede A. Moore, editor of The Harvard Crimson, a publication of Harvard University.

The racist “White Australia Policy” is not dead; it is still here hovering over Australia. What is needed is an anti-racism bill to protect marginalised Australians from the threat of racially-motivated violence, and to counter the rise of Islamophobia.”

Yet according to people here, we don’t have a problem, even though it was only a couple of weeks ago that Stephen Price was appearing on The Project pushing the exact same Islamaphobic rhetoric.

As I said Oz,I am working on my own blog post currently, linking back to here. I have saved multiple tabs of this discussion as it has progressed and can easily take “before and after” screen-shots. It would be wise for you to think VERY carefully about how you proceed, because your current actions towards me simply make you look utterly hypocritical as a libertarian.

@msher “That’s what you are talking about. I am talking about how you deal with the fact that juries are all going to be biased against these heinous acts from other cultures.”

Except that’s not the issue. The issue is this- people have perceptions of certain cultures and practices. In this case, the issue is that he grabbed a woman and held her over a railing, and he’d plead guilty to it. However suppose the facts weren’t so clear cut.

Suppose the facts were reasonably in dispute and the jury were inflamed by prosecution statements of “Sharia Law”. It is entirely reasonable to be concerned that in that situation the jury would be too tainted by their own prejudices to fairly judge a case. That is the concern raised here by the judge and while the precedent being set was a dangerous one; the blind belief in a flawed system, rather than addressing imperfections in the system as we see them, is hardly a solution to the problem – especially when history shows us just how damagine and unjust that can be.

Someone accused me of trolling for bringing up the Salem Witch trials, but really, how different are the Salem Witch Trials to a racially tainted capital punishment case where a racially tainted jury puts an innocent man or woman to death?

Even if you move to wrongful imprisonment, you are still letting the racial prejudice run roughshod over the presumption of innocence, where an impartial jury in theory, becomes a lynch mob in practice..

Contrary to the mob mentality response that I’ve encountered here, such concerns do not mean advocating for placing Sharia Law above Australian Law.

Likewise, the censorship of Ozboy in this debacle has been highly telling. This afternoon has been and gone and posts which he claimed would become visible have not. I suppose this is like the way he’s too busy playing wiht his kids to respond to posts, but not too busy playing with kids to read and approve them.

I’ve posted a blog entry myself over this entire joke of a libertarian discussion and have saved the blog page in case certain posts I made are thoroughly butchered or delted entirely.

I find it highly telling and ironic that a blog owner who professes so loudly to be a libertarian would ignore the old saying of “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it to the death.”

The reason for this was supposedly:

And having lived through this crucible, you will also understand the derision with which I regard the petulant whining and childish threats, which many of you have now read, which I received earlier today from a foolish and self-important young extremist, who appears to regard my private blog as his public soapbox, by some kind of divine right. Many of you have now endorsed my decision to exclude this individual from LibertyGibbert from now on; to do otherwise, as you have agreed, would be to trample on the Liberty of all my other guests. After all, my hospitality can be abused for only so long.

So apparently, warning that if the censorship would not cease I would be posting the entire ugly hypocrisy on here, is some childish threat. Yet this the blog in question is supposedly a libertarian one, meaning that surely, freedom of speech should be high on their list of values. Also it shows incredible elegance, class and tolerance to accuse someone of being “an extremist” for simply strongly believing in equality and challenging the imperfections in our system. After all, as it was once said, “the price of freedom is eternal vigilance”. Of course, what completes the hypocrisy is that when the blog owner has no response that does not involve mockery, cannot hide away contrary opinions and runs the risk of having those opinions exposed, they resort to a blanket response of “my house; my rules” when in a rather ironic twist, their rules, according to what they so strongly profess the nature of their blog to be; are completely grounded in libertarianism.

Evelyn Beartrice Hall wrote in 1906:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Clearly certain so-called “libertarians” appear to have a very short memory where that libertarian value is concerned. Or perhaps free speech with libertarians is something which is only applicable when opinions are convenient to them.

Clearly a pertinent question regarding some libertarians in positions of authority of one kind or another, even if it is just running a blog, is who watches the watcher?

Recently there was an article about the case of a judge ordering that a trial involving a man who had plead guilty to “detaining” his sister-in-law “for advantage to intimidate and assault” after denying and having dropped an attempted murder charge; be made a judge only trial.

Certainly the approach is not the best way of dealing with the problem, however the judge was responding to a legitimate problem – Islamaphobia. The decision was essentially that Australians are too anti-Arab and anti-Muslim to judge a trial fairly and there is plenty of evidence to suggest the judge may be right, as uncomfortable as it is for many of us in the “land of the fair go” to accept it.

In the mid 1990s, when John Howard saw that Pauline Hanson was successfully winning over what can only be described as the “redneck” vote; John Howard Jumped on the bandwagon, famously declaring

We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.

Indonesia was arguably a huge part of this as for years we in Australia have feared invasion from our northerly neighbours, and as Indonesia has for many years now, been a Muslim country, there has always been a subconscious association there of our country being perpetually under threat from an “Islamic Invasion”.

September 11 2001 merely amplified the problem, resulting in anti-terror laws which had us as a citizen body “alert but not alarmed”. A couple of points here – September 11 associated terrorism predominantly with Muslims, while ignoring the fact that the only difference between counter-intelligence and terrorism is that the later is unofficially state sanctioned. It also ignored the histories of armies like the Israelli Defence force who as history tells us, was formed in 1948 by the amalgamation of 3 terrorist groups, the Irgun, the LEHI and the Stern Gang.

The leading terrorist group the Irgun, was admittedly an officially recognised defence force for Jewish settlers, however that recognition had only come about in 1936 because the British used them to suppress the Arab revolt – much like the US used Al Qaeda to depose Qadafi in Libya. This raises the saying of “one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s insurgent/terrorist”.

However to get back to the issue of Islamaphobia, it meant in laymans terms, that people should be afraid [of Muslims] but not to panic.

In short, we had created a bogeyman in the form of the Muslim, specifically an Arab Muslim in our post 9/11 world.

However Islamaphobia has been conveniently used as a cover for our Post Modernist and imperialist colonial operations for some time now. The reality is that when you look at the legally sanctioned rape and child abuse, the shoot to kill orders against unarmed civilians, the apartheid, and other bigotry and oppression against Palestinians; you begin to see what such an ideology has become a cover for and the hypocrisy considering the parallels between it and the treatment of the Jews by the Nazis.

Raised an Orthodox Jew and a Zionist, Veteran British MP Sir Gerald Kaufman made that point so eloquently when he made this speech to British Parliament in 2009.

A question must then be asked of why such Islamaphobia has been perpetuated in the case of Israel. Sir Gerald Kaufman raises the issue of “gentile guilt” over the Holocaust being used as a political weapon, however the other issue is that Israel functions as a Western outpost and foothold in the Middle East. Israel’s interests trump human rights issues because it trategically benefits America and her allies, including us.

In fact most telling is the fact that Afghanistan has proven to be nothing more than a War for Opium and Iraq, a War for Oil.

Through it all, our supposed “heroic” “true colours” have been revealed in all their sinister blackness as demonstrated by scandals such as Abu Ghirab and civillian massacres such as in Baghdad and Afghanistan. That is ignoring the use of white phosphorus in the region- a nasty incendiary chemical weapon, which 88 countries have signed a convention banning as a chemical weapon. The 2 most prominent countries refusing to sign that convention however are, you guessed it, the USA and Israel.

So the next question has to be; how has such a disgusting blight affected us as a society. This article on Global Research makes the point nicely, discussing the impact of the media, political opportunism and neo-Nazi political parties amongst other problems.

However a study and report it quotes, from 2003 and 2004 respectively are highly telling.

The study conducted by the University of New South Wales (UNSW) in 2003 found that:

one in eight Australians interviewed admitted they were prejudiced, particularly towards Muslim Australians. The study, conducted by a team led by geography senior lecturer Dr. Kevin Dunn, also found some Australians were living in denial of such prejudice though 80 per cent of those surveyed recognized racism was a problem. When asked if they ever met a Muslim. ‘NO’, they said.

What is most telling there is the numbers of Australians the study found to be in denial of the problem. Is this what happens when we, who consider ourselves to be so deeply concerned with the values of mateship and the “fair go” find ourselves acting in a manner contrary to that?

The report, entitled ‘Respect and Racism in Australia’, prepared in June 2004 by Racism Monitor Group of the University of Technology in Sydney (UTS) reveals that:

Australian Arabs Muslims community “has been and continues to be unfairly targeted” specifically, and that racism is so frequent that “it has become almost accepted” and Muslims do not feel ‘entitled’ to make complaints. Racism against Muslims is openly promoted, and continues to contribute to decrease in the process of integration. It is propagated by politicians as a tool to instil fear in the community and justify draconian policies.

Let us not forget either, the blight of the Cronulla Riots, the recent “War on the Burqa” here in NSW or the fact that the same type of shock jocks who fueled the Cronulla riots are still filling their mindless vict- I mean listeners, with xenophobic propaganda. For every retiring John Laws or Alan Jones, there’s a Steve Price waiting to take their place. In fact, it was Steve Price who only a few weeks ago expressed outrage at refugees being processed in the community after their background checks had been performed and they had deemed too pose no threat to the community whatsoever. Steve’s argument was one “security concerns” when they had already been cleared by immigration as posing no security concern whatsoever. It’s tempting to consider this a small number of people, but the reality is that the “shock-jocks” in question have very large followings.

Furthermore at the risk of shattering Islamophobia’s ignorance about illegal immigrants; the numbers of illegal immigrants who outstay their visas, far exceeds the numbers who come by boat.

And people want to believe we don’t have a serious problem with Islamaphobia here? The question has to be, who are they deluding other then themselves and those of similar mind?

However is removing the jury system the answer to the problem? That’s highly doubtful, and I have no doubt that the only reason the decision was overturned on appeal was because it set a dangerous general precedent. However it is clear that when a problem of racism or creedism is so deeply entrenched; there is a very real danger of creed and ethnicity being judged rather than the evidence of the case.

I’m reminded of a couple of quotes from the movie “A Time To Kill”.

The first by Judge Omar, when denying the request to change venue due to concerns over racism affecting the trial is:

I’ve thoroughly reviewed your brief request and… …a change of venue. And I agree with you. It’s impossible to find an impartial jury in Canton. I think it’s impossible to find an impartial jury anywhere in Mississippi. As such… …a jury here would be… …as fair as a jury anywhere else. So I decided to deny your request for a change of venue.

The other telling quote is by the character Jake Brigance in his closing argument:

I tried to prove blacks could get a fair trial in the South… …that we are all equal in the eyes of the law. That’s not the truth. The eyes of the law are human eyes… …yours and mine, and until we can see each other as equals… …justice is never going to be evenhanded. It will only be a reflection of our own prejudices. So until that day… …we have a duty under God to seek the truth… …not with our minds… …where fear and hate turn commonality into prejudice… …but with our hearts… …but we don’t know better.

One need only look at the Salem Witch Trials as the most damning evidence of how twisted and perverted the entire system of justice can become when prejudice replaces the principles of justice and law as established by Plato and Aristotle, effectively degenerating into nothing more than a legally sanction lynch mob. Granted, racially tainted trials do not result in individuals being burned at the stake or drowned. However in capital punishment cases, this is irrelevant.

Whether an innocent man or woman is burned at the stake, hung, drowned, given a lethal injection or electrocuted, the fact is that an innocent man or woman has been unjustly murdered through a perversion of the system of justice. Even if you are talking imprisonment and not the death penalty, you are still wrongfully imprisoning someone who is innocent. The principle of the presumption of innocence, arguably the most fundamental principle of our legal system, states that

It is better for 100 guilty men to go free, than for 1 innocent man to be convicted.

The whole notion of our jury system is one of people being judged by their peers, or their equals as it is implied. However when prejudice skews the entire judicial system to a judgement on the individual and not on the evidence, then how equal, how fair, can the process truly be.

The jury system, including jury selection, was set up when we were an homogenous society. Multicultural societies are anything but homogenous, so then what is the solution?

Logically, as the jury system is sound in theory and as this is an issue to do with its practical implementation; the system itself should not be discarded. However it is the practical implementation which needs to be altered.

Similar to aptitude tests, some kind of psychological screening test would be the answer. Such a test would require research and careful design, but if done in such a way so as to elicit whether someone is racist towards a group in question, without being blatantly obvious about it; then it would be an extra layer of protection in there to prevent this problem from happening.

Granted no test is perfect, just as no system is perfect, however it stands to reason that if we are truly interested in a just society, then we need to not only accept that our system is imperfect, but look at ways of addressing those imperfections when they arise.

Someone, admittedly in mockery, raised an interesting point. If psychological screening was mandatory for those called up for jury duty, then the flow on should be psychological evaluations for police, law enforcement and those passing laws – our politicians. I would support such a move, provided such information was not publicly available for abuse by opportunists.

However such a change to the system is highly unlikely – if politicians are allowed to serve when facing corruption allegations such as Craig Thompson, and if pay rises by our politicians are never voted against by them; then they chances of them actually proposing and passing laws which make them more accountable have a snowball’s chance in hell of being passed.

Furthermore, while Muslims, and specifically Arab Muslims, continue to present such a convenient source of media sensationalism (which sells headlines) and a convenient political bogeyman, we will continue to be a racist country, rather than a “fair” one.